it'll be because of this kind of crap. I don't know what Clinton did to Dowd in the past--if anything--but this kind of pettiness is ridiculous. It's one thing to question her accomplishments in office, or to question her positions on important issues; it's her stance on the Iraq war, among other things, that has her in 3rd or 4th place on my list of potential candidates most of the time. But this is crap.

“She hasn’t accomplished anything on her own since getting admitted to Yale Law,” wrote Joan Di Cola, a Boston lawyer, in a letter to The Wall Street Journal this week, adding: “She isn’t Dianne Feinstein, who spent years as mayor of San Francisco before becoming a senator, or Nancy Pelosi, who became Madam Speaker on the strength of her political abilities. All Hillary is, is Mrs. Clinton. She became a partner at the Rose Law Firm because of that, senator of New York because of that, and (heaven help us) she could become president because of that.”

Yes, I know Dowd didn't write those words, but she's quoting them approvingly, and her tone in the rest of the piece is no different. For example, this is the sentence that precedes the above quote: "Getting ahead through connections is common in life. But Hillary cloaks her nepotism in feminism." And there's this:

But she was not elected or appointed to a position that needed Senate confirmation. And the part of the Clinton administration that worked best — the economy, stupid — was run by Robert Rubin. Hillary did not show good judgment in her areas of influence — the legal fiefdom, health care and running oppo-campaigns against Bill’s galpals.

She went on some first lady jaunts and made a good speech at a U.N. women’s conference in Beijing. But she was certainly not, as her top Iowa supporter, former governor Tom Vilsack claimed yesterday on MSNBC, “the face of the administration in foreign affairs.”

Does Clinton take a little too much credit for the successes of her husband's administration? Probably. Her husband does as well, seeing as that part of his administration that worked so well--the economy--can only be affected in a limited way by presidential policy. But both Dowd and Di Cola are full of crap when they say that Clinton has accomplished nothing on her own. Her husband gave her the name recognition that certainly helped her win her first Senate seat, but that didn't win her that election. Good campaigning did. And her husband didn't cast those Senate votes, take part in Senate debate, and isn't the one on stage at the Democratic debates. She is, for better or worse.

I wonder if Dowd would make the same sort of statements about Liddy Dole that she does about Clinton? (Answer: not really.)

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm tired of having to defend Senator Clinton from crap attacks, because it's not like I'm chomping at the bit to vote for her come January. But if I vote for her, I want it to be for a good reason, and not because petty columnists with axes to grind have driven me to it.